oihfedfhorigiojisdeffandomcom-20200214-history
Vnojrnpgribg
This is a really important question. Technology is a critical driver of growth not just for the tech industry itself, but for many other industries. I believe that many of the future leaders of all of these industries will have technical skills. This means that the fact that only 13% of the students getting computer science degrees are women is a harbinger of even more challenges for female leadership in the future. The good news is that with a focused effort to dismantle the stereotypes that hold women back, we can fix this problem. Stereotypes are self-reinforcing so one of the main reasons more women don’t go into computer science is that more women don’t go into computer science. If we can encourage more women to do so – from young ages – we can fix the problem. There are a number of steps we can take: *Reinforcing for young girls that they are good at math and science and technical endeavors. When girls are told right before a math test that “girls do well on this test,” they do better. Explicitly telling girls they can and are good in these subjects makes a difference. *Programs that encourage young girls to learn to code. Programs like Girls Who Code and Black Girls Code are showing results. *Set up structures for girls/women to encourage each other. Girls studying computer science are often greatly outnumbered by boys. Forming networks of girls can help. The Lean In Foundation is partnering with the Anita Borg Institute to help women in CS form Lean In Circles. *Help inform girls and women of the benefits of working in technology. The tech industry offers some of the highest-paying, most flexible careers of any industry. This makes it a good fit for anyone who wants to have a career and be a dedicated parent. We need to talk about this more to help encourage girls to want tech jobs. -- was a masters student in a mechanical engineering program. One of my grad-level classes in fluid mechanics had probably about 30 students, 5 of which were female. One girl dropped out in the middle of the class. You know how you meet a foreigner from a country you don't know, and whatever habits or bits of personality he/she has, you start assuming he/she represents the country as a whole? That is, until you meet another person from that same country. If they are alike, you make a tally. If they aren't, you say, well f*ck it, I gotta recalibrate! Just being a witness to some of the things guys have said to me throughout college: - You don't have to worry, you can just marry someone rich and be a homemaker. - I don't like dating girls in engineering. They are usually too some adjective like unattractive, unkept, bitchy. - I would rather work with guys on my projects because they know what they are doing. These are some pretty stupid things to say, but they come from some kind of observance on someone. If there are far fewer female students, they unintentionally get more scrutiny, and I felt that happened to me. I was never great at fluid mechanics. Stoke's Law, non-Newtonian fluid, etc. Things that you don't really pick up from Day 1, exactly. But it felt even worse wondering if I was proving these comments right. It was a cycle of torment that was slightly self-imposed. I want a greater variety of women in technology and science. That way, people recalibrate. They don't automatically assume that if a girl likes cats or the color pink, that they aren't scientist-material (I read the downvoted answers to this question). That way, when the rest of the world sees us as a conglomerate, they won't insert the word "because" in between the sentences, "This person is bad at this" and "This person is a girl." So I think the way for women to embrace technology is to have more role models in their life. People to dismantle the stereotypes. My female cousin is an operations engineer with a masters from UT Austin. My former roommate is a mechanical and manufacturing engineer. I met a lot of smart and sassy female engineers (mechanical, biomechanical, civil, environmental, electrical, computer) at my undergrad in Berkeley. My grad school advisor was female, and she is one of the credited authors of my undergrad heat transfer textbook. However, I would also like to say that my role models weren't all women or engineers. My dad is an electrical engineer who once took me to his work to look at circuit boards, and he assigned me extra homework in grade school. My mom stayed at home, but she assures me that I'm sorta smart. At least, I hope she thinks that. My sarcastic brother is a businessman, but luckily he hasn't doubted me on my capabilities (hey Jonathan, Dad says hi). To be great at anything, you really need a push in the right direction, and you need to know that, starting out, you are gonna suck at it. It's like how Jake the Dog said, "Dude, sucking at something is the first step to becoming sorta good at something." Getting into technology, science, and engineering isn't exactly easy. For me, what made me keep on going was the support I had with people who were willing to open up to me, vent with me, give me advice, and just offer an example. Without these people in my life, I probably would have just chalked it up to raw talent and cashed in my chips. I'm sorry if this isn't much of a concrete to-do list. For a tl;dr : more role models, more support, more errthang '--' spend a lot of time with my soon-to-be nine year old daughter. Her favorite subject in school right now is math. I asked her teacher, what the favorite subject is for most of the kids in the class, and the teach said 100% math. Every kid in the class, without exception, their favorite subject is math. They like the big numbers, and they challenge each other with bigger and bigger numbers. Somewhere along the way, in a few years maybe, it will all change. Especially for the girls. Why? What can be done to stop it? I currently spend a lot of time with my daughter doing sciency things. We build robots, launch model rockets, chat with astronauts on twitter, and watch The Science Channel and NASA TV. We go to planetariums, star parties, and children's museums. She loves all of it! Her friends are always interested in her latest robot (what kid doesn't love a robot?). I take them all outside at night to watch the ISS flyover. I show them the moons around Jupiter. Here's a picture of her learning how to solder when she was 8. As long as you keep the interest alive, their internal desire to learn more will only increase. Kids know what their parents are interested in. If YOU are interested in math and science, then they will be too. -- t probably starts very early. Ever browse a large toy store or the toy section of a department store? There are all kinds of neat toys that are designed to develop young minds. Toys like Legos and erector sets, motors, rockets, electronics kits. And then- there's the girls section. Dolls and bakeware galore. Kids are taught these "roles" early on and they stick, in many cases. If we really want to get girls into technology and engineering, the toys marketed for them should reflect that. -- There needs to be a Taylor Swift '''of computer science." Said by Melinda Graham, a fellow panelist on the How I Got There panel at the Women in Advanced Computing Summit last summer. I could not agree more. We need '''public narratives about women in technology, both with actual women and with television''' characters. These women need to be'''compelling characters who have lives that young girls want. They should be the computer science version of glamorous, cool, and totally badass--yet also relatable. Catherine Rampell has a nice New York Times article I Am Woman, Watch Me Hack that argues this point. Rampell says that young people "simply don’t come into contact with computer scientists and engineers in their daily lives, and they don’t really understand what they do." To support her point, Rampell cites that the "most common career aspiration" of participants in Girls Who Code is forensic science: these girls have watched "Bones" or "CSI." -- think there are a variety of issues here that play out over a long timeline: GRADE SCHOOL: Lots of little factors add up in grade school. Teachers identify kids as innately smart vs able to develop ability through effort (a la The Trouble With Bright Girls). Teachers blatantly tell classes boys usually do better in math and science classes and tests. Basic access to computers and computing devices is unequal; schools will hold computer elective classes at the same time as other typically female dominated electives (like "fashion design"), creating a false dichotomy of access and interest. Families are more likely to buy a boy child a computer, and encourage (or even just fail to discourage) an interest in math and science in boys. Sometimes families intentionally steer girl children away from STEM careers, because they assume there are problems with the field that they want to protect their kid from. I regularly speak to computer science students at college job fairs, and just last year a mom who was there with her daughter asked me the question "My daughter is interested in computer programming. But I just want to make sure it is possible for a female to be successful in this field. Can she do it?" How would you know if you never let her try? ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT STEM FIELDS: Lack of role models and information about STEM careers are problems. First of all, most parents and teachers don't even know what engineering is, and dont present it to their kids as an option: this limits access to opportunity for lots of kids, including many girls. I learned about engineering as a career option when I took an army aptitude test in 9th grade (everyone in my high school had to take this test). My results were "You scored 99s on math and science. Your ideal role in the army would be: join the army, instead become an engineer". I asked my teachers what an engineer was, and they suggested maybe it meant a train engineer (!). Parents also tend to tell their girl children that if they eventually want to have a family, they need a flexible career. So many smart girls who are good at math and science become teachers for this reason, and ironically end up making less than half what a software engineer would make, doing much more work, for ultimately less flexibility. TV has always been a problem. Popular shows like "The Big Bang Theory" portray nerdiness and interest in science as male, interest in social activities and fashion as female, and the worst part: these shows enforce a false dichotomy between these sets of interests. Many popular science and scifi shows fail to include even a single female character. And women in general, especially teachers and parents, seem to endlessly repeat phrases like "math? my brain just doesn't work like that" like a marketing slogan or self-fulfilling prophesy. Others on this list have suggested advertising the cool applications of STEM fields more, because "technology for technology sake rarely appeals to women". But I don't agree with this, because I actually like technology for the sake of technology, and because I think it distracts us from larger issues of access and discouragement that affect more girls and women. COLLEGE: When girls get to college, those who remain interested in STEM fields begin to face social issues that can be discouraging. The first thing I noticed my freshman year in computer science at CMU was the prior experience advantage: some kids entered the program with no programming experience, others had not just prior experience, but *years* of it, enabled by supportive parents and expensive extracurricular activities. This wasn't entirely a gender thing (perhaps it was more of an issue of socioeconomic class), but those with prior experience were mostly male, and they had a significant advantage their first year. Then there was also the anti-affirmative-action social backlash freshman year, where many girls were told to their faces "you only got in because you're a girl", which enforces a sense of Impostor Syndrome and isolation. Teachers also tend to call more attention to, and sometimes be more critical of female students. I would like to believe this is not out of malice, but rather that being the only one of something makes you more noticeable, and also people are bad at understanding when they are over-extrapolating. This XKCD sums the issue up perfectly: xkcd: How it Works In later college years, I also noticed a pattern where the many (but certainly not all) boys tended to be more comfortable working with each other, and tended to choose other boys to work on projects with. Within these groups, boys tended to more readily collaborate with each other, ask "stupid" questions, and share feedback while working, which helps to build each member of the group's confidence and fill in gaps in expertise. Girls were often left out of positive feedback loops like this. When I asked my guy friends in college why this happened, they would usually shrug and say "Hey, I'm shy and awkward, I don't feel comfortable just going over and talking to a girl like I would talk to a guy." I think this is less a pure issue of gender and more just the side effect of having a program with a dominant, homogenous culture, that leaves those who are outsiders with respect to the dominant culture feeling isolated and less confident. STAYING IN THE MAJOR: Major-specific clubs and mentoring programs definitely help with these social issues. And if you can prevent the early dropouts, I personally found that after a few years the classes developed enough of a rapport and shared experience that everyone grew to respect each other more, and the social problems faded away. Another thing that helps reduce the college dropout/major transfer rates is seeing evidence of women in the field after graduation. Not seeing other women on career panels, at job fairs, or in public in general in STEM careers can cause a negative feedback loop. I think current or prospective majors are thinking: why should I stick with my STEM major when there's potentially some problem with this major/field/job that could impact my overall success despite my effort? Why not just pick medicine or law instead where the numbers are more equal? Again, I think mentoring programs help, and sending women (or in general a diverse group) to events like job fairs and career panels more often. GETTING AND KEEPING THE JOB: I've been a part of the software engineering interviewing process for a handful of companies, and in my personal experience this interviewing process has been surprisingly objective and fair, though the number of female applicants is remarkably low (though perhaps on par with the percentage of computer science graduates). In the engineering work environment though, social issues similar to those I noticed in college exist (though to a lesser extent): guys are more likely to comfortably and easily share feedback with each other, include each other in discussions, think of their guy friends when new positions open up in their projects, etc. In practice, the leads to a kind of pseudo-segregation, but it seems more accidental than malicious. And it doesn't only affect women: it affects everyone who is an outsider with respect to whatever the company's dominant culture is (aka everyone other than the "brogrammers"). But these issues are all fixable: mentoring and effective management help a lot. I was lucky to have lots of great managers over the years, and recently became a manager myself. I began to see firsthand how management styles affect the quality of work and happiness of different groups of engineers. One of the first distinctions I found myself making was not women vs men, but people who belonged to the dominant culture vs outsiders. So here's what I've learned about enabling and supporting both of populations in an engineering environment: Manager feedback is incredibly important. To my surprise, most of the "outsider" engineers assumed that if they got no feedback or too little feedback, this meant they were doing poorly and they would become unhappy. But most of the "dominant culture" engineers either weren't bothered or just assumed this meant they were doing well. Since the dominant culture engineers weren't affected negatively by more feedback, I started giving more feedback to everyone, which helped the group overall. Another thing I noticed was that outsider engineers who got average or below average performance reviews tended to get discouraged and quit, whereas dominant culture engineers were confident enough to stick around despite performance issues. I think this by itself leads to both a wage and experience disparity. But again increased feedback to the struggling performers both helped them improve and discouraged them from quitting. CONCLUSIONS Others on this quora thread have shared experiences with overt sexism in their careers, and I have to say that I was surprised to discover an almost complete lack of this: instead I found wonderful mentors and advocates, a rewarding and interesting career, I've gotten lots of promotions and raises, and have been put in a number of leadership positions. So my perspective is: "JOIN US! It's awesome here." Ultimately, my conclusion is that the root of the gender disparity is lack of equal information, lack of equal encouragement and support, lack of equal access to classes and opportunities. You could even call it unintentional segregation, that spans not just gender, but also class, race, etc. I think we should attack the issue like we would segregation, and understand that solving this problem will benefit everyone, not just women.